News What is wrong with the US economy? Part 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Economy
AI Thread Summary
The U.S. economy is facing significant challenges, highlighted by the Federal Reserve's decision to maintain interest rates at 2%, which led to a market decline. AIG's stock plummeted by 45% due to concerns over its exposure to risky derivatives, prompting speculation about a potential Federal bailout. The Fed is reportedly considering a lending facility for AIG, with major banks like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase involved in discussions. Despite some recovery in AIG's stock, there are ongoing concerns about the broader implications of a potential AIG collapse on the financial system. The U.S. trade deficit has also widened, raising alarms about the country's economic stability as it continues to accumulate debt.
  • #101
mheslep said:
Pretty sad indeed. Both sides of the aisle. The people in WDC are not doing their job, but they are collecting a hefty paycheck. I'll bet non on the Senate Banking Committee have done a review of the audits, and as far as I know, the audits done on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not conform to FASB rules. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
My understanding is that the subprime crisis and the fallouts we're seeing from it have a great deal to do with increased trading and speculation in credit derivatives during the past couple of decades. Someone pointed out to me this http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2002pdf.pdf" that seems to presage it all, from p. 13:

Warren Buffett said:
Charlie and I believe, however, that the macro picture is dangerous and getting more so. Large amounts of risk, particularly credit risk, have become concentrated in the hands of relatively few derivatives dealers, who in addition trade extensively with one other. The troubles of one could quickly infect the others. On top of that, these dealers are owed huge amounts by non-dealer counterparties. Some of these counterparties, as I’ve mentioned, are linked in ways that could cause them to contemporaneously run into a problem because of a single event (such as the implosion of the telecom industry or the precipitous decline in the value of merchant power projects). Linkage, when it suddenly surfaces, can trigger serious systemic problems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #103
I am still trying to track down exactly what happened to Hagel/McCain's http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190" Fed. Housing ... Reform Act 2005, which would have stopped Freddie/Fannie from growing. S 190 was reported out of the Banking Cmt. (barely) on a party line vote, at the time still under the control of Shelby. It is clear to me that Dodd and Frank were in the tank for Fred/Fan but they were not in charge then. Frist and Shelby were charge in 2005. So it got out of Banking, why did it never come to a floor vote? Threat of filibuster? Conflict w/ the House?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #104
mheslep said:
I am still trying to track down exactly what happened to Hagel/McCain's http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190" Fed. Housing ... Reform Act 2005, which would have stopped Freddie/Fannie from growing. S 190 was reported out of the Banking Cmt. (barely) on a party line vote, at the time still under the control of Shelby. It is clear to me that Dodd and Frank were in the tank for Fred/Fan but they were not in charge then. Frist and Shelby were charge in 2005. So it got out of Banking, why did it never come to a floor vote? Threat of filibuster? Conflict w/ the House?
Yeah! It should be pretty straightforward to find out what happened to a Bill, i.e. the Bill's history in original committee, in conference committe, and then in the Senate or House.

I suppose one could email Hagel and others and ask 'What the heck happened?!"

Would it show up in the Congressional Daily Record?

Here it is again -

S. 1100: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2007
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1100
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #105
Big Financiers Start Lobbying for Wider Aid :bugeye: :mad:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/business/22lobby.html
Even as policy makers worked on details of a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, Wall Street began looking for ways to profit from it.

Financial firms were lobbying to have all manner of troubled investments covered, not just those related to mortgages.

At the same time, investment firms were jockeying to oversee all the assets that Treasury plans to take off the books of financial institutions, a role that could earn them hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees.

Nobody wants to be left out of Treasury’s proposal to buy up bad assets of financial institutions.

“The definition of Financial Institution should be as broad as possible,” the Financial Services Roundtable, which represents big financial services companies, wrote in an e-mail message to members on Sunday.
I hope Congress learns to "Just Say No!" :rolleyes:
 
  • #106
The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have
http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/105735/The-65-mpg-Ford-the-U.S.-Can't-Have

It's too expensive to import, and it would cost too much to build in the US.


Huh? What is wrong with this picture?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #107
Astronuc said:
The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have..[/url]

Only 65 mpg? Check my car

The Peugeot 308 currently holds the world record of the most fuel efficient mainstream car, averaging 3.13 L/100 km (75 mpg–U.S. / 90 mpg–imp) over a distance of 14,580 kilometres (9,060 mi).[2]
 
  • #108
Lots of stock buyback announcements today: Microsoft 40B , HP 8B, and Nike 5B.

When it comes to the value of the stock market vs. the value of the dollar, it should be clear our government prefers the stock market over the dollar (for the last 80 years, anyway). And most corporate executives know these government handouts will increase the value of their stock. Maybe now would be a good time to invest?
 
  • #109
Astronuc said:
It's too expensive to import, and it would cost too much to build in the US.
Huh? What is wrong with this picture?
Those are two reasons, but the main reason is:
Yahoo said:
"We know it's an awesome vehicle," says Ford America President Mark Fields. "But there are business reasons why we can't sell it in the U.S." The main one: The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel.
 
  • #110
There are a number of clean burning new generation diesels about to hit the U.S. market. The Volkswagen Jetta TDI even gets the buyer a $1,300 federal tax credit.

http://www.tucsonvw.com/

Edit. I see there isn't a 2009 Jetta TDi yet in stock locally.
 
Last edited:
  • #111
jimmysnyder said:
Those are two reasons, but the main reason is:
"We know it's an awesome vehicle," says Ford America President Mark Fields. "But there are business reasons why we can't sell it in the U.S." The main one: The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel.
Yeah - I know about the diesel issue. But they can't just put a gasoline engine in it. OK - so it won't get 65 mpg, but will it get 50-55 mpg? If so, it beats 20-30 mpg.

Apparently the Europeans don't have as strict a NOx/sulfur limit as the US. I don't like being in rush hour traffic or on congested highways/autobahns in Europe since the reek of diesel exhaust.
 
  • #112
nuby said:
Lots of stock buyback announcements today: Microsoft 40B , HP 8B, and Nike 5B.

When it comes to the value of the stock market vs. the value of the dollar, it should be clear our government prefers the stock market over the dollar (for the last 80 years, anyway). And most corporate executives know these government handouts will increase the value of their stock. Maybe now would be a good time to invest?
Looks like MS is going to dump a bunch of cash, and I'd expect some options will be exercised. MS also upped the dividend.
 
  • #113
The administration has added items other than just mortgages to the bail out list.


The three-page rescue plan sent to Congress Sept. 20 empowers Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to purchase mortgage- related securities from U.S. financial companies. The administration widened the scope of bad loans that may be acquired, potentially including car loans, credit-card debt and other devalued assets held by banks.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a7iCv1F0kuvQ&refer=home


With nearly $800 billion in credit card debt in this country, that could increase the bailout by a very significant figure.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/132810
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #114
Andre said:
Only 65 mpg? Check my car

Astronuc said:
Yeah - I know about the diesel issue. But they can't just put a gasoline engine in it. OK - so it won't get 65 mpg, but will it get 50-55 mpg? If so, it beats 20-30 mpg.

Apparently the Europeans don't have as strict a NOx/sulfur limit as the US. I don't like being in rush hour traffic or on congested highways/autobahns in Europe since the reek of diesel exhaust.
Actually with regards to diesel I believe particulate matter is the larger problem. The US standards are extremely high. I doubt the Peugeot 308 would be legal here.

Edit: Euro 4 vs EPA TII B5:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/04/nissan_to_intro.html
...Meeting Tier 2 Bin 5 regulations requires an additional 83% reduction in NOx emissions from Euro 4 levels, and a 75% reduction in PM...
Hard but doable apparently by Nissan.

GM's Lutz addressed the subject too regarding the Volt which will be gas electric here, diesel or gas electric in Europe, in part because of the US emissions standards, in part because he claims gasoline ICE is closing on diesel in efficiency.
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/07/14/diesel-volt/
 
Last edited:
  • #115
I think anyone could put a gasoline engine in the Pugeot 308 for it to be legal in the US. Let GM/Chrysler/Ford/Honda do their own version.

Clearly it's possible to get a high mileage car in the US. The Big 3 have been fighting CAFE for how long?


Also - another volatile day on the Stock market

Marketwatch (9/22/08) - Dow industrials slide 370 points as Wall Street tries to assess bailout.

Oil's biggest gain ever - Crude makes its biggest one-day price gain since 1984 when futures first began trading. Oil closes up $16 to $120, but blasts as high as $130.

Not a sign of strong fundamentals.
 
  • #116
Finally, a sane politician, as opposed to the screaming hair-on-fire neocons who insist that Congress must act now to give Paulson free rein to hand out a trillion dollars to his Wall Street cronies.
Bernie Sanders said:
I have proposed a three part plan to accomplish that goal which includes a five-year, 10% surtax on the income of individuals above $500,000 a year, and $1 million a year for couples; a requirement that the price the government pays for any mortgage assets are discounted appropriately so that government can recover the amount it paid for them; and, finally, the government should receive equity in the companies it bails out so that when the stock of these companies rises after the bailout, taxpayers also have the opportunity to share in the resulting windfall. Taken together, these measures would provide the best guarantee that at the end of five years, the government will have gotten back the money it put out.

Second, in addition to protecting the average American from being saddled with the cost, any serious proposal has to include reforms so that we end the type of behavior that led to this crisis in the first place. Much of this activity can be traced to specific legislation that broke down regulatory safety walls in the financial sector and allowed banks and others to engage in new types of risky transactions that are at the heart of this crisis. That deregulation needs to be repealed. Wall Street has shown it cannot be trusted to police itself. We need to reinstate a strong regulatory system that protects our economy.

Third, we need to address the needs of working families in this country who are today facing very difficult times. If we can bail out Wall Street, we need to respond with equal vigor to their plight. That means, for example, creating millions of jobs through major investments in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and creating a new renewable energy system. We must also make certain that the most vulnerable Americans don't freeze in the winter or die because they lack access to primary health care.

Finally, we need to protect ourselves from being at the mercy of giant companies that are "too big to fail," that is, companies who are so large that their failure would cause systemic harm to the economy. We need to assess which companies fall into this category and insist they are broken up. Otherwise, the American taxpayer will continue to be on the financial hook for the risky behavior, the mismanagement, and even the illegal conduct of these companies' executives.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080922/cm_thenation/45362953
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #117
lesko.jpg
 
  • #118
Astronuc said:
I think anyone could put a gasoline engine in the Pugeot 308 for it to be legal in the US. Let GM/Chrysler/Ford/Honda do their own version.

Clearly it's possible to get a high mileage car in the US. The Big 3 have been fighting CAFE for how long?

Step two of my "solve our economic problems" plan.

Fire all detroit execs. No billion dollar severance packages.

Put the 10 greenest(as in new, not worm eaters...) electrical engineers in charge of the corporations.

Tell them to to reorganize their corporations into something that will generate the most efficient vehicles on the planet. Promise them a quadrupling in pay if they succeed.
Tell them to give a $10,000 bonus to each engineer who does not say; "It cannot be done".
Tell them to fire the rest.

A couple of years ago I saw a SmartCar and researched it and found that it got close to 100mpg(euro-diesel).

My brother bought one last month(USA-gas) that gets worse gas mileage than his 1972 Toyota.

2 fewer seats, and no room for improvement. hmm.. 2008-1972= 36 years of nada single improvement. Unless you count of course shiny things.

DIY'ers all around me are getting better than 200mgp(equivalent) from their home-brewed EV's.

can anyone explain a credit derivative to me in 50 sentences or less...?
 
  • #119
OmCheeto said:
...DIY'ers all around me are getting better than 200mgp(equivalent) from their home-brewed EV's...
So do golf carts, no DIY required.
 
  • #120
mheslep said:
So do golf carts, no DIY required.

DIY EV-Porsche 914's, to my knowledge, are not allowed on the golf courses.

And they do better than 5 mph. :smile:

What is wrong with the US economy, is simply a matter of perception...

A lot of perceptions that is. :biggrin:
 
  • #121
OmCheeto said:
DIY EV-Porsche 914's, to my knowledge, are not allowed on the golf courses.

And they do better than 5 mph. :smile:
A DIY EV 914 probably has about the same range as a golf cart. And w/o regen braking a converted 914 will not get anywhere near 200 mpg equivalent unless it is downhill all the way.
 
  • #122
Where did that bill to regulate Fannie and Freddie go? $200,000,000 spent by lobbyists may have squelched it.

But the political tentacles of the mortgage giants extend far beyond their checkbooks.

The two government-chartered companies run a highly sophisticated lobbying operation, with deep-pocketed lobbyists in Washington and scores of local Fannie- and Freddie-sponsored homeowner groups ready to pressure lawmakers back home.

They’ve stacked their payrolls with top Washington power brokers of all political stripes, including Republican John McCain’s presidential campaign manager, Rick Davis; Democrat Barack Obama’s original vice presidential vetter, Jim Johnson; and scores of others now working for the two rivals for the White House.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080716/pl_politico/11781

As of March 19- 08 Fan and Fred were supposedly looking good.

http://www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/LockhartStatement31908.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #123
edward said:
...]

As of March 19- 08 Fan and Fred were supposedly looking good.

http://www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/LockhartStatement31908.pdf
From Lockhart's statement:
...Effective immediately, OFHEO is reducing the OFHEO-directed capital requirement for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 30 percent to 20 percent above the 2.5 percent minimum statutory capital requirement.
There it is right there, lifeboats being tossed off the Titantic before it sails. Better yet, the statement is so recent that it qualifies as a 'full ahead' with the iceberg in plain view and and ice falling on the deck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #124
There is no earthly need for these bailouts. The idea is to generate fear among the masses who will then call for measures to give money to these institutions. I say let them live or die on their own. Nothing bad will come of it. Bad ones will die off and good ones will take their place. We are fast becoming a socialist state with the socialists crying the loudest "don't throw me in yon briar patch!".
 
  • #125
Bailing out corporations doesn't have anything to do with socialism.
 
  • #126
mheslep said:
From Lockhart's statement:
There it is right there, lifeboats being tossed off the Titantic before it sails. Better yet, the statement is so recent that it qualifies as a 'full ahead' with the iceberg in plain view and and ice falling on the deck.
That should have been a WT* moment, given that all the warnings over the past 5 years.


CAPITOL REPORT
Echoes of Iraq in Bush handling of mortgage crisis
News analysis: Another 'trust me' remedy is getting rushed before lawmakers
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Fairly or not, some critics say they can't help but see similarities between the Bush administration's hurried approach to the financial market crisis and its headlong plunge into the Iraq war.

"You can draw some valid parallels between the prosecution of the war under the Bush regime and the way the financial sector has operated in recent years," said Tom Schlesinger, head of the nonprofit research group Financial Markets Center in Howardsville, Va.

"It fails the most basic test of democratic accountability," Schlesinger said.

On Tuesday, Washington kicks off the first hearings in which top officials will defend their prescription before lawmakers, who also are compelled by circumstances to take speedy action.

Some policy observers point to a "trust us" mentality in the administration's call to obtain sweeping powers that are scant on checks and balances on the executive branch. In addition, the White House is faulted with a failure to raise alarm before the situation spiraled out of control, forcing the mobilization of more troops and untold financial resources.

Outlining the administration's remedy, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson came up with a three-page plan to spend $700 billion on toxic mortgage debt that was very spare on key details.

It boils down to "give me the money and trust me," Schlesinger said.
. . . .

Economists said there was a central problem to the Paulson plan. Most of the toxic waste in question does have some price, but it has been too low for the financial institution holding them to accept. So the government buyout would only work if taxpayers overpay for the assets.

"It is no wonder that the Bush administration is pressing to get the plan passed quickly before any real oversight can be brought to bear, because even the simplest due diligence suggests that it needs some work if the taxpayer's interests are to be even minimally protected and some real oversight brought to bear on the whole process," wrote Josh Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at MFR Inc. in a note to clients.

. . . .
It will be interesting to look back in 20, 30 years to see how this period is judged.
 
  • #127
OrbitalPower said:
Bailing out corporations doesn't have anything to do with socialism.
The Federal gov't bailing out corporations IS socialism.
 
  • #128
jimmysnyder said:
The Federal gov't bailing out corporations IS socialism.

Socialism is when you have worker run means of production. The workers did not run Fanny Mae and Freedy Mac or Bear Stearns or anybody else, and if they did, this whole thing never would have happened.

Witness public utilities versus privatizes ones.

Capitalism is when the government protects the corporate interests; theoretically, in pure capitalism there is no such thing as even human rights - the government only exists to protect property owners.

So this is a failure of capitalism and the government has stepped into solve it. When the government protects the corporations at the expense of the public, that is called fascism, the successor of capitalism.
 
  • #129
OrbitalPower said:
Socialism is when you have worker run means of production. The workers did not run Fanny Mae and Freedy Mac or Bear Stearns or anybody else, and if they did, this whole thing never would have happened.
They do now.
 
  • #130
The government does, and the government is influenced by the corporations - not workers. Corporations have far more influence on the government than workers.

We really have a "free-market" lobbying esystem in addtion to a free-market economy, so it's no surprise that both are in shambles. (Capitalism has collapsed the US economy before.)
 
  • #131
jimmysnyder said:
There is no earthly need for these bailouts. The idea is to generate fear among the masses who will then call for measures to give money to these institutions. I say let them live or die on their own. Nothing bad will come of it. Bad ones will die off and good ones will take their place. We are fast becoming a socialist state with the socialists crying the loudest "don't throw me in yon briar patch!".
I don't like it either. What do you expect will happen to the availability of credit absent some kind of action? Banks are sitting on bad assets and they're still depreciating. The Treasury proposes to buy up the bad assets. How does a GM, a Caterpillar, Joe's Pizza, what have do if the money dries up?
 
Last edited:
  • #132
mheslep said:
I don't like it either. What do you expect will happen to the availability of credit absent some kind of action? Banks are sitting on bad assets and they're still depreciating. The Treasury proposes to but up the bad assets. How does a GM, a Caterpillar, Joe's Pizza, what have do if the money dries up?
I expect interest rates would climb. Credit would shun risky investments, like subprime loans, gravitate toward solid ones, like 30 year fixed with 20% down for no more than 2 years' salary. All investments would have to prove their worth to creditors. The short term pain would be overcome by the long term gain in the overall improvement of the investment mix. The current round of interventions all have the same purpose: reward risky investment. Median house prices have been falling and they should continue to fall until the median income can buy the median house under the 30 - 20 - 2 rule that I mentioned above.
 
Last edited:
  • #133
jimmysnyder said:
I expect interest rates would climb. Credit would shun risky investments, like subprime loans, gravitate toward solid ones, like 30 year fixed with 20% down for no more than 2 years' salary. All investments would have to prove their worth to creditors. The short term pain would be overcome by the long term gain in the overall improvement of the investment mix. The current round of interventions all have the same purpose: reward risky investment. Median house prices have been falling and they should continue to fall until the median income can buy the median house under the 30 - 20 - 2 rule that I mentioned above.
A sound description of how things should have been and what they should become. 'Credit' in the 2nd sentence is used as if there is some unaffected credit source waiting to come forward when wiser lending conditions prevail. The question then: is there any unaffected credit that can step forward? I don't think so. Absent any action to buy bad assets I 'd like to see the evidence that it will not just totally stop, versus merely grow tight and cause some term pain.
 
  • #134
Another roller coaster day on the stock markets as the Dow 30 surged about 120 points and then reversed direction drifting down to -150 points during the day.

AIG is almost $5/share, so if one bought at $2/share, one has done quite well.


Last week, the IRS gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a special deal.

IRS break boosts Fannie, Freddie - by Marine Cole, September 14, 2008
http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080914/REG/809129952
Tailor-made ruling helps agencies use tax losses to goose capital.
When Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae inflated their core capital in recent quarters through the questionable use of deferred-tax credits, they didn’t violate any accounting rules. But they certainly received preferential treatment from auditors, regulators and tax authorities even as they were being bailed out by the government.

While Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson placed the two companies in “conservatorship” early last week, the Internal Revenue Service, which Mr. Paulson oversees, rewrote certain tax rules that will allow the mortgage institutions to take advantage of those tax credits. And that will help keep them alive for the time being.

Other companies, especially commercial banks, could also boost their capital with deferred-tax assets and get away with it to a certain extent. But only the banks, or at least big ones, might be able to count on auditors and regulators being as lax on them as they were on Fannie and Freddie, because of the risk to the financial system their failure might pose.
 
Last edited:
  • #135
mheslep said:
'Credit' in the 2nd sentence is used as if there is some unaffected credit source waiting to come forward when wiser lending conditions prevail. The question then: is there any unaffected credit that can step forward? I don't think so. Absent any action to buy bad assets I 'd like to see the evidence that it will not just totally stop, versus merely grow tight and cause some term pain.
Credit is tight now, but it hasn't dried up. Home sales are down, but they are not zero. I don't know who's getting loans now, but I expect that a customer who meets the 30 - 20 - 2 rule can still get one. I think another 25% drop in home prices would go a long way to getting us out of this.
 
  • #136
jimmysnyder said:
Credit is tight now, but it hasn't dried up. Home sales are down, but they are not zero. I don't know who's getting loans now, but I expect that a customer who meets the 30 - 20 - 2 rule can still get one. I think another 25% drop in home prices would go a long way to getting us out of this.
No dried up yet. The prediction from Paulson in the recent 15 lawmakers meeting, according to B. Frank today, was that nobody would get a car loan. Banks have to maintain a minimum capital reserve in assets, below which they can not loan regardless of the risk.
 
Last edited:
  • #137
jimmysnyder said:
Credit is tight now, but it hasn't dried up. Home sales are down, but they are not zero. I don't know who's getting loans now, but I expect that a customer who meets the 30 - 20 - 2 rule can still get one. I think another 25% drop in home prices would go a long way to getting us out of this.


It's a mixed bag. If home values drop another 25% anyone who bought a home in the past 3 years will be upside down on their loan. That includes those with prime loans who paid the 20% down. That is really devastating for people who get job transfers.

On the other hand housing would once again become more affordable. Some people would still be out of luck because they would have to use an FHA loan and pay the MIP.

All in all we appear to be heading back to square one as far as home ownership goes.
 
  • #138
edward said:
All in all we appear to be heading back to square one as far as home ownership goes.
Square one was when there weren't any houses. We are not headed there.
 
  • #139
Last edited:
  • #140
mheslep said:
Banks have to maintain a minimum capital reserve in assets, below which they can not loan regardless of the risk.
The Fed routinely adjusts the percentage minimum in order to add or subtract liquidity. And Paulson is a snake-oil salesman.
 
Last edited:
  • #141
jimmysnyder said:
Square one was when there weren't any houses. We are not headed there.

When that was square one a person could build his own home. I think I was referring to the point where the federal government became involved in home loans.
 
  • #142
jimmysnyder said:
The Fed routinely adjusts the percentage minimum in order to add or subtract liquidity.

Which is to say, to adjust the level of risk banks are allowed to run. But such considerations are extremely premature when the Federal government is busy dumping billions into said banks just to keep them solvent, and the banks have no appetite for more risk. You could lower liquidity requirements all you wanted, and it wouldn't have any effect, as any bank that actually loaned out more money (for houses, no less) would immediately see its stock price tank. Moreover, why would anyone want to borrow money to buy a house in the first place, if they believed that prices were going to drop by another 25%? You might as well just burn your down payment for warmth.

Not that I'd mind getting a deal on my first house, but let's be realistic: 25% is huge, and would bankrupt millions of families who bought homes in the last few years. Not a recipe for any kind of swift, painless recovery.
 
  • #143
quadraphonics said:
Not a recipe for any kind of swift, painless recovery.
I offer no recipe for swift, painless recovery. Go to Congress for that. They sell kool-aid by the barrel.
 
  • #144
When I bought a house 18 years ago, I put down 10%. I since passed the 20% mark (so not PMI), I've enlarged the house, and pretty much have replaced everything but the original frame.

If I was starting out today, I probably couldn't live in the area where I live now, because the housing prices have appreciated much faster than inflation and salaries. Many kids in our area are looking elsewhere to live because the area is expensive.

In the last 6 months, I've been getting bombarded by offers for commercial real estate at bargain prices, and that has surged in the last month. This area has recently seen a surge in small businesses closing, and more than the usual number of houses on the market, and they remain on the market a lot longer.
 
  • #145
Raines worked for Obama campaign per the WP. I hear the campaign denies this now. Whatever.
WP July 2008 said:
In the four years since he stepped down as Fannie Mae's chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal, Franklin D. Raines has been quietly constructing a new life for himself. He has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case's D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters...
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071502827.html
 
Last edited:
  • #146
From the WP article

Raines settled charges brought by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight by agreeing this spring to pay $2 million and forfeiting $22.7 million in stock and other benefits. And though none of it will come out of his pocket -- the payment was covered by insurance -- he has not emerged unscathed. He and his wife of more than 25 years, Wendy, are separated. Their house, a 1910 colonial in Northwest Washington, is for sale. An old friend, former Time Warner chairman Richard Parsons, describes him as being "in strong recovery mode."
. . . .
In October 2003, even as Raines was invited to the Bush White House to receive a leadership award on behalf of Fannie Mae, investigators were about to look into the company's accounting books. A year later, Congress held a hearing on accounting irregularities at the company. By the end of 2004, Raines was forced out by the board, accused by regulators of overseeing accounting manipulations to bolster his compensation.
:rolleyes:

It reamins to be seen how recently the Obama campaign was talking to Raines. On the other hand, he has a cloud hanging over him. I'm pretty sure I read that OFHEO was concerned about Fannie Mae well before Oct, 2003 - perhaps as early as Feb 2002.
 
  • #147
  • #148
By the end of 2004, Raines was forced out by the board, accused by regulators of overseeing accounting manipulations to bolster his compensation.
This is a huge problem that needs to be addressed with regulations. The people running large companies are often rewarded for good short-term performance, and if they can cook the books or manipulate policies to make the profit/value of the company look good, they can get leveraged goodies, like stock options priced at very favorable rates, so that if they can increase the value of the stock temporarily (and they can, in most cases), they can cash in the options and do VERY well, at the expense of regular share-holders, mutual funds, etc. I don't know how to address this problem effectively, though I think it is quite fortuitous for Cheney that he refused to divest himself of Halliburton stock and options, and somehow Halliburton and subsidiaries managed to get many billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to support a war that we didn't need to fight... Our financial system seems designed to allow the powerful to divert public money into private pockets.

The current "bail-out" plan being pushed so feverishly by Bernanke and Paulson smells. It looks like a last-ditch attempt to create a huge windfall for speculators while there is a compliant/complicit administration in power. The inclusion of language making Paulson's actions off-limits for judicial or administrative review is a huge red flag.
 
  • #149
CAPITOL REPORT
Bernanke rides to rescue of Paulson plan
Clear that plan may take more time to pass, but avoids derailing

Various senators are skeptical and/or concerned about Paulson's plan. I don't blame them, and I have to wonder if they even understand it or the current turmoil in the markets.

. . .
A key point of the critics was that under the plan Treasury must pay more than the market value for the mortgage assets.

But Bernanke explained that the mortgage securities have two prices - a "fire-sale price" if the mortgage asset was sold quickly today and a "hold-to-maturity" price if the mortgages were held to maturity.

Banks have been paralyzed by this fire-sale price because their precious capital would evaporate overnight.

The key to the plan, Bernanke said, was that if Treasury was able to buy the mortgages, it will be able to hold them to maturity. As a result, the fire-sale price could be avoided.
This would remove uncertainty, return liquidity, and credit markets should be able to unfreeze, Bernanke said.

"This is not an expenditure of $700 billion. This is a purchase of assets. If auctions are done properly...the American taxpayer will get a good value for his or her money and as the economy recovers, most, all, or perhaps more than all, of the value will be recovered over time," Bernanke said.
I'm still curious about the punitive measures involved, or at least some assurance that the people who are responsible for the current crisis are held accountable, and not rewarded for their irresponsible/reckless actions.

Rescue plan hits speed bump in Senate
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=e1f27722623140078f49f33f2493c076
Financial rescue plan greeted with skepticism


Here are some of todays headlines from Marketwatch (while Bernanke and Paulson were discussing the plan with the Senate):

  • Bernanke: Paulson plan would set 'hold-to-maturity' price
  • Bernanke: U.S. can buy assets near hold-to-maturity prices
  • Bernanke against suspension of mark-to-market accounting
  • Dodd: Constitution put at risk by Paulson mortgage plan
  • Sen Dodd:Confidence in U.S. financial future has been shaken
  • Paulson: Slicing $700 bln into tranches 'a grave mistake'
  • Paulson: Focused on helping small as well as large banks
  • Paulson opposes proposal to get equity in return for help
  • U.S. also plans to buy assets from foreign banks: Paulson
  • Bernanke says U.S. plan 'precondition' for economic recovery
  • U.S. will get money back from bad assets it buys: Bernanke

Congress really needs to get serious about regulation. Regulation isn't inherently unfair - but bad regulations can be. Can we trust Congress to do it right?


And here is a commentary by PAUL B. FARRELL
Reaganomics $3.9 trillion debt outrages taxpayers
Mad as hell? Try the Zen Millionaire's 12-step 'antirage' meditation
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=69d374526f1742dda3da334864e446b3
 
Last edited:
  • #150
OrbitalPower said:
Socialism is when you have worker run means of production.
If that's what Socialism is, then Socialism is a form of insanity. What maniac would take a good engineer like me and set me to running the company I work for? What lunatic would ask my boss, a successful businessman, to listen to my opinion on how to run the show? What nut would ask my boss to sit with me and help me write programs? Is Socialism a cure for the division of labor? Would society benefit if I spent a part of my day drilling for oil? Does Socialism mean I need to learn the intricacies of interest rate swaps, or should I just trade by the seat of my pants?
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
35
Views
8K
Replies
870
Views
113K
Replies
91
Views
24K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top